As an addendum, I'd like to throw out something I find interesting. I've read that when the Mongols invaded Japan, the samurai found their tachi worthless against Mongol mail. Mail. When did they start wearing mail? But to muddy up the water, I also read (elsewhere) that the bulk of the...
I'd like to make a few comments because there seems to be fundamental misunderstanding of Mongol conquest of Song China, arising out of both overestimation and underestimation of crucial variables. On the first account is the overestimation of the aid North China gave to the conquest of South...
That's part of my point. Given the danger and prevalence of gunfire on the 16th century European battlefield, why wasn't at the very least proofed cuirass adopted for the Janissaries and/or Spahis? As far as E Europe went, I think part of the reason was the sheer space, which favored sweeping...
None of those "reasonings" held up to close scrutiny. Sorry if the Ottomans reasonings isn't good enough for me? WT heck is that?! If the Ottomans gave a reason(s), obviously it'd be enough... You're making it sound like I have no knowledge on the period or the empires involved. I'm...
That's the type of circular BS reasoning I'm trying to avoid. Would you be satisfied if you asked why didn't the French adopt longbow and I said because "sometimes the reasons people do things don't make sense?" Plate armor was in fact easier and cheaper to make than Ottoman plated mail...
It was rarely used in the 16th century Central Europe, the place of its birth (or popularization) as well. So not just in Western Europe. As far as explanations, I don't have one; if I did, I wouldn't have needed to ask. It's baffling, really, hence the purpose of this thread. Re: the...
The question is for what reason or set of reasons, i.e., I'm looking for more than your circular they didn't because they didn't. The reasons given thus far are unconvincing because they don't hold up to close scrutiny. For example, heat is unconvincing because in the European theater, the...
Against Polish and Turkish cavalry. Just as they were successful in Africa in the 18th century. It's just they weren't part of standard European repertoire (at least in non-East European armies). Besides, the 17th century was well in the disintegration of Ottoman military effectiveness.
The core army, for the most part, was for most of this period. The Janissaries and the Sipahi of the Porte were comparable in numbers to their European opponents. As to your numbers, I doubt it, unless your source was counting the total number of MEN at the siege, not the total number of...
In the 15th century, the Turks often used wagenburg tactics, but in the 16th century, it's my understanding that they fought in shot and pike manner like their contemporaries. Otherwise, their victories over Germans and the Spanish don't make much sense. Wagenburg was dangerous in the 15th...
Thanks for the replies. However, I don't find the arguments put forth here persuasive enough. For the sake of argument, I'll be confining my why's to the Turks. While it's true that guns were less common in the East, during the period in question, the Turks were neck deep in European...
I'm curious as to why neither the Mamluks nor the Ottomans adopted plate armor. This is especially puzzling for the Turks, since they had had ample opportunities and means to both poach European armorers (as they did with gunmakers) and reverse engineer it. Instead, they stuck with plated mail...
It could have changed great many things. There are many variables here to consider, but if Hannibal's victory could've given the Barcids near-absolute control over Carthage, it's possible, though somewhat unlikely, that Carthage could've gotten a far better peace treaty, whereby at least North...